WIXLIB

The Design, Play, and Experience Frameworkflicts between theory, content, and game designrarely arise since the game mechanics and pedagogical theory are already defined at the outset.Such games separate learning content and gamemechanics (Halverson, 2005; Malone & Lepper,1987). Designers of exogenous educational gamestypically reuse successful game mechanics, suchas hangman, a Jeopardy-style game show, or aSpace Invaders-style shooter, inserting the contentto be learned into the pre-existing game structureand rules. Content is often the only new input,and the learning tends to be limited to reinforcing knowledge recall. This can be seen in earlyedutainment titles, such as Math Blaster1 or morerecent Web-based titles such as Trivia Archer2.In contrast, endogenous educational gamestarget more complex learning goals beyond memorization and do so in part by integrating learningcontent into the structure of the game (Halverson,2005). Like exogenous games, endogenous gamesfrequently adopt familiar game genres such as roleplay or adventure games, board or card games,or puzzles. The defining characteristic of endogenous games, however, is that the game play itselfinforms the pedagogical theory and embodies thelearning content. By requiring players to explorethe game space and use their knowledge to meetgame challenges, designers of endogenous gamespromote active problem solving and reinforcecontext-specific learning goals. Consequently,endogenous educational game designers beginwith a more or less blank slate. They seek an idealized convergence of content, theory, and gamedesign that achieves the hypothetical potentialof games to promote advanced forms of learning(aka, the heart of serious game design). The vastchallenge being, of course, is that this ill-specifieddesign problem has infinite possible solutions.Oregon Trail (MECC, 1985) is an example of anearly endogenous learning game. More recentexamples include Life Preservers (2006), HotShot Business3, and Times Attacks4.the mdA FrAmeWorKThe mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics (MDA)framework was designed and taught by MarcLeBlanc (2005a) to “ clarify and strengthen theiterative processes of developers, scholars andresearchers alike, making it easier for all partiesto decompose, study and design a broad classof game designs and game artifacts” (Hunicke,LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004, p. 1).The MDA framework depicts the relationshipof the designer and the player (see Figure 2). Thedesigner designs the mechanics or formal rules ofthe game. These rules are instantiated at play timeand influenced by the player’s inputs, forming thedynamics, or run-time behavior of the game. Theaesthetics of the game are the resulting emotionalresponses in the player when playing.In this framework, the designer only has directcontrol over the mechanics of the game. Therefore,the designer must determine the desired aesthetiche or she hopes to create for the player and thendesign the mechanics to achieve these desiredaesthetic. The designer utilizes play-testing andgame balancing to modify the mechanics overtime to achieve the desired aesthetic through aniterative process.While the MDA framework has proven to be auseful approach to designing and analyzing gameplay (LeBlanc, 2005b), it does not specificallyFigure 2. The MDA framework MechanicsDesignerDynamicsAesthetics Player1013

The Design, Play, and Experience Frameworkaddress aspects of game design beyond the gameplay, including the storytelling, user experience,and influence of technology on the design. Thisis partially due to the game play-centric languageused in the framework. For example, we can attempt to decompose the mechanics, dynamics, andaesthetics of the storytelling and user experience,but the semantics of the terminology often get inthe way of doing so. This approach also jettisonsthe discipline-specific language used in storytelling and user experience design.Further, the MDA framework focuses on thedesign of games for entertainment. Designingserious games offers a unique set of design challenges (Winn & Heeter, 2006/2007) that are notencompassed in the MDA framework.Similar to the MDA framework, the DPEframework depicts the relationship betweenthe designer and the player (see Figure 3). Thedesigner designs the game, the player plays thegame, which results in the player’s experience.The designer only has direct control over thedesign itself. To design a game effectively, thedesigner should first come up with goals for theresulting experience. These goals can be used bothto guide the design and to gauge the effectivenessof the design once implemented. The arrow fromexperience back to design represents both theinfluence of the goals on the original design andthe iteration on the design once a prototype of thegame is tested against the experience goals. Thisreflects the inherently iterative process of gamedesign (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004), includingdesigning, prototyping, play-testing, and iteratingback to the design based on the experience of theplay-testing (see Figure 4).However, play is a mediated experience. Playis greatly influenced by not only the design, butalso the player, including his or her cognitive,social, cultural, and experiential background thathe or she brings to the given play experience.Therefore, the experience of one player maybe profoundly different than the experience ofanother player. The target audience for the gamemust be strongly taken into account throughoutthe design process.the dPe FrAmeWorKThe design, play, and experience (DPE) framework was created as an expansion of the MDAframework to address the needs of serious gamedesign for learning, while also attempting toaddress some of the semantic barriers describedearlier. The DPE framework presents a languageto discuss design, a methodology to analyze adesign, and a process to design a serious gamefor learning.Figure 3. The DPE framework DesignerDesignPlayExperienceFigure 4. Iterative design processP ro to typeD esig n1014P la ytest Player

The Design, Play, and Experience FrameworkFigure 5. Expanded DPE framework DesignPlayExperienceL ea rningContent andPedagogyT eachingL earningS to rytellin gCharacter, Setting,and NarrativeStorytellingStoryG a m e p la yMechanicsDynamicsU se rE xp e rienceUser InterfaceInteractivityDesignerPlayerE ngagementT echnologyThe expanded DPE framework (see Figure5) depicts the sub-components of serious gamedesign, including the learning, storytelling, gameplay, and user experience layers. Each layer hasa design, play, and experience aspect (describedin the figure). Technology is represented in thebottom layer. While the designer does not necessarily design the technology, the design itself isrealized (or not) on the technology.While the serious game design process isoften led by a team of individuals with diverseexpertise (as described earlier), to simplify theconversation, the design team will simply bereferred to as the designer in the discussion thatfollows. To that end, the potential players of theserious game will be discussed as a figurativeindividual player.learning layerIn the learning layer, the designer designs thecontent and pedagogy, which results (hopefully)in teaching when the player plays the game. Thisleads to a set of learning outcomes (either realizedor not) derived from the overall experience.As described previously, the designer shouldfirst come up with goals, or in this case, learningoutcomes for the resulting experience and thendesign the content and pedagogy to meet thesegoals. Just as an instructor might do in their curriculum development, the designer can define theirlearning outcomes using proven instructionaldesign techniques.Bloom’s Taxonomy on Teaching and Learning(1956) is useful in thinking about and generatingthe student learning outcomes in serious game design. This taxonomy defines three types of learning, including cognitive, psychomotor, and affective learning, commonly simplified as knowledge,skills, and attitude (KSA). The taxonomy alsofurther sub-categorizes cognitive and affectivelearning into a range of behaviors, from simplestto advance. For example, cognitive learning issub-categorized into knowledge, comprehension,application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.While Bloom’s taxonomy did not sub-categorizepsychomotor learning, others since have (Dave,1975; Harrow, 1972; Simpson, 1972).There are many resources available to helpserious game designers generate student-learningoutcomes using Bloom’s taxonomy (e.g., Clark,1999) or using any number of other learningtaxonomies. The main point is to take the timeearly in the design process to think about and rigorously define your learning goals. The goals notonly form the basis for the design of the contentand pedagogy but also can form the basis for theassessment of the game’s learning effectivenesson the player. With an increase in focus on testingand monitoring student performance, generatingeffective forms of assessment is rapidly becominga must for any serious game.1015

The Design, Play, and Experience Frameworkstorytelling layerThere are two perspectives on storytelling ingames: the designer’s story and the player’sstory (Rouse, 2001, p. 216-218). The designer’sstory is the storytelling that is designed into thegame. The designer’s story can be used to setthe stage, provide purpose and engagement, andconvey content, among other things. The setting,character design, and narrative are the designersprimary design tools.The storytelling that occurs during play combines the designer’s story with the interactions andchoices the player makes. The resulting experience crafts the player’s story. Some games havestronger designer stories, such as adventure androle-playing games, while others have little to nodesigner story, such as classic arcade games likePacman and puzzle games like Tetris. However,all games have a player’s story, which at the veryleast reflects the story of the game play challengesencountered by the player and how the player addressed them. When approaching a design, thedesigner must first decide on what type of storieshe or she wants the player to be able to experience and design the setting, character design, andnarrative to achieve this.The learning outcomes often complicate thestorytelling in serious game design. For example, ifyou are developing a serious game to teach history,how much can the games storytelling deviate fromthe actual events of history and still accomplish itsobjectives? If you are developing a serious game toteach science, can your storytelling integrate elements of science fiction? Each of these importantstorytelling design decisions must be temperedwith the desired learning outcomes.game Play layerThe game play layer defines what the player doesin the game. That is, what choices the player canmake in the game world and what ramificationsthose choices will have on the rest of the game1016(Adams & Rollings, 2007, p. 277). The game playlayer is broken down into mechanics, dynamics,and affects. The mechanics are the rules that definethe operation of the game world, what the playercan do, the challenges the player will face, andthe player’s goals. The dynamics are the resultingbehavior when the rules are instantiated over timewith the influence of the player’s interactions. Theresulting experiences, or emotions derived in theplayer, are the affects.The game play layer most closely resembles theoriginal MDA framework that was the inspirationof the DPE framework. The notable exception isthe change of terminology from aesthetics, whichfor many represents a visual arts term representingthe beauty of something, to affect, a psychologicalterm meaning emotion or desire.As in the MDA framework, the designer musttake a formal approach in defining what emotionshe or she wants to raise in the player. From aplayer’s perspective, the game may be describedas fun or not fun. However, as a designer, it isimportant to move beyond simply describing thedesired emotion as fun. The designer must decompose fun and understand the particular aspectsthat derive a fun experience in the player.Marc LeBlanc lists eight kinds of fun as aesthetic goals (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004),which I will refer to here as affective goals. PierreAlexandre Garneau (2001) wrote an article thatproposed 14 forms of fun. Heeter, Chu, Maniar,Mishra, Egidio, and Winn (2003) expanded thisto 16 forms of fun, including beauty, immersion,intellectual problem solving, competition, socialinteraction, comedy, thrill of danger, physicalactivity, love, creation, power, discovery, advancement and completion, application of an ability,altruism, and learning.LeBlanc further formalizes the process ofdefining the affective goals by creating a rigorousdefinition of each goal, which includes criteria forsuccess and failure. For example, LeBlanc (2005a)defines competition as a game where the playersare emotionally invested in defeating each other.

The Design, Play, and Experience FrameworkFigure 6. Balancing the level of difficultyToo DifficultChallenge(Frustration)elannhwCFloLow SkillHigh SkillToo Easy(Boring)SkillThe players are adversaries and want to win arethe criteria for success while the players feel thatthey cannot win or players feel they are unableto gauge their progress are criteria for failure ofthe model.Once the affective goals are defined, the designer must then devise the mechanics to realizethese goals through the dynamics of the playexperience.The only way to determine if the mechanicsactually do realize the affective goals is throughplay-testing. With appropriate formal modelsfor success in hand, it becomes quickly apparentto what degree the goals are being reached. Thedesigner can then use this information to modifythe mechanics to better achieve the goals. Thisprocess is known as balancing the game. Severaliterations of designing, prototyping, play-testing, and revising are often required to balancea game.One common form of game play balancing isthe balancing of the level of difficulty. Figure 6contains psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi(1990) theory of flow, which demonstrates that inorder for the flow state to be achieved, the level ofchallenge must match the player’s abilities as hisor her skills increase. If the challenge is too great,the player will become frustrated and may giveup. If the challenge is too little, the player willquickly become bored and may quite playing.Another form of game play balancing relatesto the frequency of rewards given to the player.Figure 7 represents a common learning curve inthe game. A designer usually wants to balancethe game so that the player is rewarded moreoften (represented as stars) during the steepestpart of the game’s learning curve, or during themost challenging parts of the game, in order tokeep the player playing. This can be thought asa form of operant conditioning with the rewardsrepresenting reinforcements at key points asthe player learns how to play and overcome thegame’s challenges.The designer often also needs to balance theprogression of play. Early in the game the playermay be overwhelmed with a great deal of choicesas they learn how to play. Therefore, the designeroften wants to limit the choices early in the gameand then ramp the number of choices up as thegame progresses as shown in Figure 8. The typical pattern for introducing new choices is that thedesigner will present the player with a new goalin the game. The player will need to gain somenew skill in order to achieve the goal. The playerwill learn and practice this new skill until theymaster the skill and finally achieve the goal. The1017

The Design, Play, and Experience FrameworkChallengesFigure 7. Balancing the frequency of rewardsLinrnaerveugC rew ardTimeChoicesFigure 8. Balancing the progression of playTimeprocess then repeats, building on the previouslyintroduced skills.Rollings and Adams (2003, p. 240) state, “abalanced (entertainment) game is one where themain determining factor for success of the playeris the skill level of that player.” While this isoften true as well in a serious game, the goals inbalancing a serious game often are influence byadditional factors, most notably factors relatedto the desired learning outcomes (see section on“Influence Between Layers”).user experience layerWhile the user experience layer is represented asthe deepest layer in the framework, it is actually themost visible (or surface) layer from the perspectiveof the player. Bruce Shelly with Ensemble Studios,a well-known designer of entertainment games,1018once said, “the game designer’s principal goal isto create entertaining game play. The purpose ofthe interface is to make that entertainment accessible” (Saltzman, 2000, p. 256). While this is trueas well for serious games, the purpose of the userinterface is also to create a vehicle to realize thedesired serious outcomes.The game design manifests itself throughthe user interface. The interface encompasseseverything the user sees, hears, and interacts withand how that interaction happens (i.e., the controlsystem). Ultimately the goal of the designer is(usually) to develop a game that immerses theplayer in the game world and engages them in theplay experience. Good user interfaces are said tobe transparent, that is, the player does not haveto focus their attention on how to play the game(i.e., what button to press) but rather on the gameplay, storytelling, and learning experience.

The Design, Play, and Experience FrameworkInfluence Between Layerstechnology layerThe vertical arrows shown in Figure 5 reflect thefact that each layer has influence over the otherlayers. For example, the learning will influenceand be influenced by the storytelling, game play,and user experience. Certain design decisions arecomplementary or conflicting across the layers.Sherry and Pacheco (2004) argue that seriousgames for learning are most effective when agame’s game play matches the desired learningoutcome. They developed a heuristic for mappingdifferent types of learning, based on Bloom’s taxomony, to game genres. Marc Prensky (2001, p.156) developed a similar table that maps differenttypes of learning to potential activities and gamestyles. For example, for the learning of skills,Prensky proposes the use of “imitation, feedbackcoaching, continuous practice, and increasingchallenge” for learning activities, and “role-playgames, adventure games, and detective games”as potential game styles.When making design decisions, you mustalways consider the impact of those decisionson the other aspects of the game. In working outdesign conflicts, I suggest starting with the topmost layer and working you way down. For mostserious games for learning, the learning is the mostimportant aspect and usually the least malleable.Storytelling is often tied closely to the learningcontent and therefore should be addressed next,but is usually much more malleable. The gameplay and user experience layers are the mostmalleable and often must adapt to the learningand storytelling. However, as discussed, designis an iterative and creative process. Decisions inlower levels and discovers in play-testing willinfluence you design across all layers and shouldbe addressed. For example, ce

storytelling, game play, user experience, and technology components of a serious game. The author concludes by detailing how the framework provides a common language to discuss serious game design, a methodology to analyze a design, and a process to design a serious game for learning.